Hybrid networks
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 45

HYBRID NETWORKS PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 78 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

HYBRID NETWORKS. Gregg Bachmeyer Integrating UMTS and Bluetooth Integrating Infrastructure-based and Infrastructure-less Networks Darien Hirotsu Integrating DTN and MANET Paradigms. By Gregg Bachmeyer for CMPE 257.

Download Presentation

HYBRID NETWORKS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Hybrid networks

HYBRID NETWORKS

  • Gregg Bachmeyer

    • Integrating UMTS and Bluetooth

    • Integrating Infrastructure-based and Infrastructure-less Networks

  • Darien Hirotsu

    • Integrating DTN and MANET Paradigms


By gregg bachmeyer for cmpe 257

By Gregg Bachmeyer

for CMPE 257

Hybrid Networks- A Hybrid Architecture Of UMTS and BlueTooth For Indoor Wireless/Mobile Communications- Towards Truly Heterogeneous Internets: Bridging Infrastructure-based and Infrastructure-less Networks - Hybrid Ethernet/IEEE 802.11 Networks for Real-Time Industrial Communications


Hybrid networks1

Hybrid Networks

  • Hybrid networks refers to any networks that contain two or more communication standards


Personal experience 2001

Personal Experience (2001)

Compaq Presario 7240

Phonenet

Appletalk

230kbs

10Base-T

IEEE 802.3,

10 mbs/hd

Powermac 7100

MAC SE/30

10Base-T

IEEE 802.3

100mbs/fd

Phoneline

PPP/Slip

56kbs

internet

10Base2

IEEE 802.3

10mbs/hd

D-Link DE 809TC

HP 9000 apollo 400


Common experience 2011

Common experience (2011)

Dsl box

internet


Why hybrid networks can be hard to deal with

Why hybrid networks can be hard to deal with

  • Reliability

  • Speed

  • Addressing/Routing

  • Intent


Speed differences

Speed differences


A hybrid architecture of umts and bluetooth for indoor wireless mobile communications

A HYBRID ARCHITECTURE OF UMTS AND BLUETOOTH FOR INDOOR WIRELESS/MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS

  • T. KWON, R. KAPOOR, Y. LEE, M. GERLA

    • UCLA Computer Science, 3803B Boelter Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095,USA

    • E-mail: {tedkwon,rohitk,yenglee,[email protected]

  • A. ZANELLA

    • Universita degli Studi de Padova, Via Gradenigo 6/A, 35131 Padova,Italia

    • E-mail: [email protected]


Hybrid networks

UTMS

  • Cell phone coverage

  • Third generation mobile communications system (3G)

    • In process of changing to 4g

  • 2 main interfaces

    • UMTS–FDD based on wideband–CDMA

      • outdoor macro–cellular or micro–cellular communication environments.

    • UMTS–TDD based on combination of CDMA & TDMA

      • indoor pico–cellular communication environments.

      • Allows symmetetric radio resources between uplink and downlink

      • Higher bit rate


Bluetooth

Bluetooth

  • Limited radio coverage

  • Referred to as scatternet or piconet Primarily related to PANs (Personal area networks)

  • Bluetooth operates in the 2.4GHz ISM frequency band

  • uses a fast frequency–hopping technique to minimize interference

  • range of approximately 10 meters

  • Supports many different addressing types


Proposed solution

Proposed Solution

  • using a hierarchical approach.

    • UMTS base station

    • UMTS UEs are hybrid devices that also have a Bluetooth interface

    • Scatternets

    • Don’t use 802.11b because it will cause interference with Bluetooth

    • 802.11 has high power requirements


A hybrid architecture of bluetooth and umts

A Hybrid Architecture of Bluetooth and UMTS


Topology of the architecture showing a 3x3 bluetooth scatternet

Topology of the architecture showing a 3x3 Bluetooth scatternet

  • 3X3 piconets

  • Gray lines show communication routes

  • possible uses

    • “Intelligent–Supermarket,” a central server

    • Library

    • Cafeteria


Simulation setup

Simulation Setup

  • GloMoSim (scalable simulation library)

    • Bluetooth model

      • Layer: Logical link control and adaptation protocol

      • Connection :Asynchronous Connectionless

    • UMTS model

      • turbo coding with 1/3 forward error correction (FEC)

      • A dynamic radio resource allocation (frame-by-frame)

    • Routing Protocol: AODV


Network configuration

Network Configuration

  • 2 setups

    • Common

      • D represents bluetooth polling cycle

    • 2 hybrid devices, each of which serves 3 BT masters

      • Bluetooth device is connected to the UMTS BS through a hybrid device and another in which a single hybrid device may be used to connect more than one Bluetooth device to the UMTS BS

      • Each BT master is a slave in the piconet of the hybrid unit.

      • Each piconet contains 4 slaves

      • D represents bluetooth polling cycle

    • six hybrid devices and six Bluetooth devices

      • each hybrid device needs to service only one Bluetooth device.

      • bandwidth wasted for polling is not significant in this case.


Underyling protocol issue

Underyling Protocol Issue

  • The paper does not cover how to do addressing so Ethernet protocol is assumed.

  • May need something like a protocol to traverse hybrid networks


Hybrid networks

Towards Truly Heterogeneous Internets: BridgingInfrastructure-based and Infrastructure-less Networks

  • RaoNaveed Bin Rais

    • University of Nice - INRIA

    • Sophia Antipolis, France

    • Email: [email protected]

  • Marc Mendonca

    • University of California

    • Santa Cruz, CA, USA

    • Email: [email protected]

  • Thierry Turletti

    • INRIA

    • Sophia Antipolis, France

    • Email: [email protected]

  • KatiaObraczka

    • University of California

    • Santa Cruz, CA, USA

    • Email: [email protected]


Overall issue

Overall Issue

  • Original MeDeHa was only partial solution

    • Does not deal with infrastructures networks

  • Improvement is MeDeHa++

    • Allow ad-hoc networks to act as gateways in, through, from networks.


Medeha framework

MeDeHa++ Framework

  • The MeDeHa++ framework achieves the following goals:

    • Seamless message delivery between two nodes irrespective of network type.

    • Partition mending through multihop ad-hoc (MANET) “transit networks”.

    • MANET routing protocol independence. This allows MANET nodes to communicate with MeDeHa++ nodes without running MeDeHa++.


Expected new network combinations to support

Expected new network combinations to support

GW nodes connecting two different MANETs

GW nodes connecting two different MANETs


A typical example of message delivery in manet

A typical example of message delivery in MANET


Medeha functional components

MeDeHa++ Functional Components

  • Notification Protocol

    • Neighbor Sensing

      • Broadcasts Hello messages (+ status) to build routing table

    • Neighborhood Information exchange

      • Many different messages to determine the gateway and neighbors

  • Routing and Contact Table Management

    • Handles routing tables marking them as

      • Current neighbors

      • Recent neighbors

      • MANET neighbors

  • Relay Selection and Forwarding

    • Uses the routing table to reduce replication of messages

  • Interaction with MANETs

    • Helps in interaction with other routing protocols


Medeha with multihop ad hoc networks

MeDeHa++ With Multihop Ad-hoc Networks

  • MANET Information Exchange

    • GW is detected by neighbor sensing MANET protocol

    • GW consults the MANET routing table to keep info current

    • GW keeps track of past encounters

    • Notifies the AP about new infrastructure nodes to forward packets to them

    • Has a possibility of sending a leave network packet (can this really happen?)

  • Gateway Discovery in MANETs

    • Use the connectivity info to

      • discover gateways

      • Exchange data and control information

    • Allows MANETs to act as “transit networks”

    • Direct Neighbors can use MeDaHa++

    • Multihop connections can use IP encapsulation


Medeha with multihop ad hoc networks cont

MeDeHa++ With Multihop Ad-hoc Networks (cont…)

  • Proactive vs. Reactive MANET Routing

    • GW node running AODV may not have all routing info necessary

    • Proactive routing will provide better routing (like OLSR – Optimized link state routing)

  • Message Delivery to MANETs

    • GW node is used to bridge the MDH nodes

    • GW passes information to MDH nodes with

      recent neighbors packet

    • GW nodes buffer packets to provide to the MDH nodes ( packets expire after a time)

  • Message Delivery across MANETs

    • Able to provide multihop communication between 2 GWs using MANET routing protocol as if GWs are neighbors

    • GWs exchange routing info with the MeDeHa++ messages

    • Nodes and forward and receive packets


Test setup

Test Setup

  • Simulation

    • NS-3 simulator

    • Measuring Packet delivery ratio.

  • Physical

    • Linux Implementation with netfilter

  • 4 Scenarios

    • Convention Center

    • Community InterConnection with MANETs

    • KAIST Real Mobility Traces

    • Hybrid Experiment Results


Scenario 1 convention center

Scenario 1: Convention Center

  • Convention Center

    • 1000x1000 meter

    • 60% access points

    • (senerio 1) 90 visitors

      • 20 sources +20 receivers

      • 30 gateways

      • 30 MeDeHa++ nodes

      • 30 non- MeDeHa++ nodes

    • (senerio 2) 90 visitors (social affiliation)

      • 3 groups of 20 affiliations

      • 30 non- MeDeHa++ nodes

    • BonnMotion mobility model

    • 1 hour

    • 2 phases

      • Forwarding vs. Replication

      • Relay Selection Strategy


Scenario 1 convention center cont phase 1 forwarding vs replication

Scenario 1: Convention Center(cont…)Phase 1 - Forwarding vs. Replication

  • Increases delivery chances (90% to 97%)

  • Minimizes AD

Forwarding vs. 2-copy Replication using ER scheme for 1st phase of scenario 1 (30 MDH, 30 GW, 30 OLSR visitors)

Comparison between ER and SAR schemes using 2-copy replication for 1st phase of scenario 1 (30 MDH, 30 GW, 30 OLSR visitors)


Scenario 1 convention center cont phase 2 forwarding vs replication

Scenario 1: Convention Center(cont…)Phase 2 - Forwarding vs. Replication

  • Drastic decrease in AD due to increase of participating nodes in SAR (Social Affiliation Replication) – [due to ER relay restictions]

  • Increase in average PDR and increase in delay when using encounter based replication

Forwarding vs. 2-copy Replication using ER and SAR schemes for 2nd phase of scenario 1 (60 GW, 30 OLSR visitors)

Comparison between ER and SAR schemes using 2-copy replication for 2nd phase of scenario 1 (60 GW, 30 OLSR visitors)


Senerio 2 community intercommunication with manets

Senerio 2 :Community Intercommunication with MANETs

  • 3 different communities

    • Areas

      • 600 x 600 meters

      • 400 x 400 meters

    • 20 gateways

    • 3 AP routers

    • Each community has 10 nodes (2 gateways)


Senerio 2 community inter communication with manets cont

Senerio 2 :Community Inter-communication with MANETs (cont…)

  • Improves PDR slightly

  • Slightly increases AD

Forwarding vs. 2-copy Replication using ER scheme for scenario 2

Impact of different encounter parameters on fraction of nodes while comparing forwarding and replication for scenario 2


Senerio 3 kaist mobility traces

Senerio 3: KAIST Mobility Traces

  • Used real traces

    • 2 hours

    • 40 students

    • Random student

      movement

  • Achieved

    • Improvement in PDR

    • Decrease in AD

    • 2-copy replications perform

      better than 1

Forwarding vs. 2-copy Replication showing a comparison between

MeDeHa and MeDeHa++ using KAIST mobility traces for 40 nodes


Scenario 4 hybrid experiment results

Scenario 4: Hybrid Experiment Results

  • Systems

    • 4 laptops as wireless stations

    • 3 laptops as AP routers

      • Has NS3 simulation of 30 workstations

    • 2 briefcases

    • Used OLSR (Optimized Link State Routing )

  • Outcomes

    • Hybrid outcome matches that of what the

      Simulation provided

    • 2-copy replications perform

      better than 1

Forwarding vs. 2-copy Replication comparison resulting from a hybrid scenario involving real and simulation machines


Benefits

Benefits

  • Many scenarios showed benefits in different ways including conceptually.

  • Networks became gateway dependent.


Hybrid ethernet ieee 802 11 networks for real time industrial communications

Hybrid Ethernet/IEEE 802.11 Networks forReal-Time Industrial Communications

  • Stefano Vitturi

    • Italian National Council of Research, IEIIT–CNR, Department of Information Engineering University of Padova

    • Via Gradenigo 6/B 35131 – Padova (Italy)

    • [email protected]

  • Daniele Miorandi

    • CREATE-NETv. Solteri 38

    • 38100 – Trento (Italy)

    • [email protected]


Using wireless in 802 11 in industrial situations

Using wireless in 802.11 in industrial situations

  • Factory automation using sensor and actuators.

  • There are existing protocols that are used

    • R-FIELDBUS (High Performance Wireless Fieldbus In Industrial Related Multi-Media Environment)

    • PROFIBUS DP (Decentralized Peripherals) used to operate sensors/actuators from centralized controller

    • UDP (User Datagram Protocol )

    • DSSS(direct-sequence spread spectrum) physical layer of IEEE 802.11

    • IP (Internet Protocol)


Hybrid configuration for stations using the udp based communication profile

Hybrid configuration for stations using the UDP based communication profile

TCP

- more reliable

- has congestion control

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UDP

- removes the 802.1D need

- can have packet lose


The ethernet pdu

The Ethernet PDU

  • Use UDP over TCP to move IP packets around.

  • Supportsrealtime and non-realtime traffic

  • Control a token at the application layer to

  • Assumes that Ethernet, 802.11, reduce need for TCP.

  • TCP congestion control may negatively effect network performance

  • Uses SEND and SEND WITH REPLAY (which allows confirmed transmission between the systems)


Industrial importance

Industrial importance

  • Cyclic & Acyclic data

    • Round robin scheme called Profibus DP that include priorities levels.

    • Queries slaves for cyclic data

    • Then repeats the cycle for acyclic data

  • Stations are passive

  • CSMA/CS in 802.11 limits the effect of collisions.


Mean cycle time vs number of wireless passive stations nwd 10

Mean cycle time vs. number of wireless passive stations, Nwd = 10

Mean cycle time

Deviation


Mean alarm latency vs number of wireless passive stations nwd 10

Mean alarm latency vs. number of wireless passive stations, Nwd =10.


Mean cycle time vs number of wired passive stations nwl 7

Mean cycle time vs. number of wired passive stations, Nwl = 7.

Mean cycle time

Deviation


Mean alarm latency vs number of wired passive stations nwl 7

Mean alarm latency vs. number of wired passive stations, Nwl = 7.


Author conclusions

Author conclusions

  • The outcome appears to allow usage of 802.11 for sensor networks

  • Using IEEE 802.15.3 instead of 802.11 and a TDMA setup could allow fewer collisions.

  • Field buses normally do not use UDP.


References

References

  • Wireless Data Demystified by John R. Vacca

  • A HYBRID ARCHITECTURE OF UMTS AND BLUETOOTH FOR INDOOR WIRELESS/MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS by T. KWON, R. KAPOOR, Y. LEE, M. GERLA & A. ZANELLA

  • Hybrid Ethernet/IEEE 802.11 Networks for Real-Time Industrial Communications by Stefano Vitturi & Daniele Miorandi

  • Towards Truly Heterogeneous Internets: Bridging Infrastructure-based and Infrastructure-less Networks by RaoNaveed Bin Rais, Marc Mendonca, Thierry Turletti, & KatiaObraczka


  • Login